Hi, On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 04:18:08PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 01:21:02PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > From: John Wood <john.wood@xxxxxxx> > > > > Add a menu entry under "Security options" to enable the "Fork brute > > force attack mitigation" feature. > > > > Signed-off-by: John Wood <john.wood@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > security/Kconfig | 1 + > > security/fbfam/Kconfig | 10 ++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 security/fbfam/Kconfig > > > > diff --git a/security/Kconfig b/security/Kconfig > > index 7561f6f99f1d..00a90e25b8d5 100644 > > --- a/security/Kconfig > > +++ b/security/Kconfig > > @@ -290,6 +290,7 @@ config LSM > > If unsure, leave this as the default. > > > > source "security/Kconfig.hardening" > > +source "security/fbfam/Kconfig" > > Given the layout you've chosen and the interface you've got, I think > this should just be treated like a regular LSM. Yes, throughout the review it seems the most appropiate is treat this feature as a regular LSM. Thanks. > > > > endmenu > > > > diff --git a/security/fbfam/Kconfig b/security/fbfam/Kconfig > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..bbe7f6aad369 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/security/fbfam/Kconfig > > @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > +config FBFAM > > To jump on the bikeshed: how about just calling this > FORK_BRUTE_FORCE_DETECTION or FORK_BRUTE, and the directory could be > "brute", etc. "fbfam" doesn't tell anyone anything. Understood. But how about use the fbfam abbreviation in the code? Like as function name prefix, struct name prefix, ... It would be better to use a more descriptive name in this scenario? It is not clear to me. > -- > Kees Cook Thanks, John Wood
